I dont have a problem with that idea, i'd probably use it, however I dont think it'd work. i think there'd be far more fake profiles
Comment has been collapsed.
Is there a problem with fake profiles? I don't know the answer to that, but I've never seen that mentioned on the forums. Don't you have to have a minimum of $100 value in your Steam account to join SG?
Comment has been collapsed.
So maybe those games won't count in the minimum value ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
How 30+ fake profiles?
You need to buy a lot of games for that..
Games which I said aren't humble bundle/indie gala
Comment has been collapsed.
As I said before, I never heard of an epidemic of fake profiles. If that's the case, I don't think multiple entries is the concern, but rather re-examining the requirements to join, with the obvious solution being with Yakir stated - that none of the games on the bundle list count toward the $100 "entry fee".
Comment has been collapsed.
Great idea, make it giveaway creator's choice when they are setting up the giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know the inner workings of SG, but I have professional experience with SQL databases, so I'm not simply stating that as one of the naive people on the Internet that think everything is all puppies and rainbows. You have add a field that holds the number of entries for a person...you alter the formula to account names multiple times based on that number.
Comment has been collapsed.
No you wouldn't... Adding an additional field would mean additional coding to calculate everyone's odds using a weighted random algorithm. If you've ever made one of those, you'll understand why this is NOT the way to go when dealing with a database.
What you REALLY would do for multiple entries is simply add an additional ROW for each entry. This then allows the existing code to work without modification, since it's randomly selecting any row. If you have five entries, you therefore have 5 rows of data. Problem solved. Voila!
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't you think that if you would want this game so badly, and spent all your points on the giveaway, others wouldn't do the same? Leads to: exactly the same chance as before. You didn't think that through, brah.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really the same... It can be much worse hahaha
Quick example: You have 50 points left, you want a game badly, therefore you spend all the 50 points. Meanwhile, 5 people are lucky enough to have 300 points unspent... You got the idea ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
You mean nonsensical, overdone threads, because this is another one.
Comment has been collapsed.
It would raise entries in giveaways for popular games, but it would give you much better odds in less popular giveaways.
To take an extremely simplified system, assume you have ten people who all have 150 points. There are giveaways for a popular 50 point game, two 20 point games, four 10 point games, and four minor 5 point games. Conveniently, all ten people can legally enter for all of these games.
Under the one entry system, all ten people spend their 150 points to enter once into each giveaway. Thus each person has a 1 in 10 chance to win each specific game.
Under a multiple entry system, people will choose to spend their points differently. Some might spend all their points for 3 entries in the 50 point game. But not everyone will do that, so they actually get a better than 1 in 10 shot for that one title, but lose the chance of winning any other game. Others might spread their points around, they'll have worse odds in popular giveaways, but might have better odds in less popular giveaways, and will have chances in more games. Some people will focus on a less popular game specifically, maybe dumping all their points into a single 10 point game.
Some smaller games might see their entries greatly reduced, drawing in entries only from people who are willing to toss points at a low competition event.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for providing an example. My OP was already getting kind of long, so I didn't want to be so complex. But you nailed it!
Comment has been collapsed.
I do not like this idea, because as bobofatt said that will ruin the concept of one person, one entry = equal chance for each of the entrants.
Comment has been collapsed.
What really is the point of one person, one entry? It doesn't give everyone on the site equal chances, because access to giveaways themselves are restricted. For any specific giveaway that I can enter, I have the same chance of winning as anyone else who enters that giveaway, but I don't have the same chance to enter any specific giveaway. The people who are in restricted groups have much better chances of winning on this site than people who are in no groups. The same goes for people that have contributor values in the thousands of dollars. (So you can effectively "buy" better odds, and your personal connections will get you better odds as well.)
I'm not trying to argue against the contributor value and group-only giveaways, but "one person, one entry == fair" is a myth under the current system.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a whole new story and this is the reason why all my giveaways are public.
I guess, someone from the staff is gonna say to you this: As long as you're eligible to enter to a certain giveaway the one person, one entry == fair for that particular giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Btw I'm afraid that some people can't see the wood for the trees. In other words, individual improvement > SG's system improvement.
I'm talking in general and not about you InsomniaNY.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree and i want it. It does get boring to spend points when you don't want any of the bundle games. Let's say there is a game you really want, so you enter it but you have 250 points left to get rid of, so you waste time putting it in games you don't really want or you might not even play.
Comment has been collapsed.
It would create an interesting dynamic, but then the question you have to ask is would it really prevent people from entering/winning with no intention of playing the game? Would you see people just throw all 300 points in one giveaway and not necessarily do it because they want to play it, but because the odds at winning are greater?
This would definitely help those people who actually want to win a game that they wanna play, but I'm not too sure about preventing hoarders, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bleh, a limit? I was hoping to see a Fortix giveaway with over 12731263291 entries
Comment has been collapsed.
Good idea, but make it not applicable to Group or Private giveaways, just to keep things fair.
As for public, I think it would prevent people spamming points into everything they see and focus all of their points into what they really want :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe could we only allow points regeneration only if a giveaway entered is over.
For example, I enter an actual giveaway for 50 points. I have 300 points, so it decreases to 250. Then my points can only reach the maximum ammount of 250 'til the giveaway is ended.
Like that people would care more about their points and stop spending them on games they don't want, and give more chances to folks who really wants a game to win it, rather than someone who don't care about it.
The cons could be the fact that if someone enters multiple giveaways for an X game he wants that has 2 weeks left , he'd become stuck without any points to spend in this X game for actual/incoming giveaways for it with a short ammount of days, hours, or minutes left.
Comment has been collapsed.
It would just encourage people to enter giveaways at the last minute. You wouldn't enter a giveaway with two weeks to go, you'd just bookmark the page or something and enter it with two hours to go.
Overall, the system would hurt more casual users, while having little impact on the people who are out for every advantage that they can find.
It could encourage a more deviant behavior as well, not just entering giveaways that you don't really care about, but specifically entering whatever giveaways are about to be resolved, so you lose as little point generation as possible (particularly in bundle periods).
Comment has been collapsed.
Should be cool some kind of Pokeball catch system where you paid regular point for enter let's say 50 Points for Skyrim.....
PokeBall x1 - 50 points / SuperBall x2 - 80 points / UltraBall x3 - 120 points/ MasterBall x4 - 170 points / SafariBall(Only For Group Giveaways) x3 - 100 points / Where it just give you to 4 chances to win the game, Not actually a big boost for a game with 2k+ entries but is something :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I wanna be, the very best;
like no user ever was.
To win them, is my real test;
to play them is my cause!
Comment has been collapsed.
It could also be a massive grave for points and nothing else (in private and group giveaways). Normal: 5 ppl enter and everyone invests 60 points. 1/5 chance. Your system: 5 ppl enter the game,everyone invests 300p for 5 entries... chance 1/5.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ya, It would be to be disabled in Groups/Private (Or they also has the option as suggested below).
With so few people, it wouldn't work too well, But with 1000's of entry's, it would work great, Giving a slight edge to people who are smarter with there points.
Comment has been collapsed.
478 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Thief2K
101 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by kevinxz
862 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by Myrsan
1 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by lostsoul67
51 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by AwesomePossum50
258 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by schattencheg
2,114 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by MeguminShiro
11 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by wigglenose
106 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by 9389998
26,609 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by thenevernow
9 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by PapaSmok
807 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by Mdk25
104 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by AwesomePossum50
245 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Shanti
Let's say SG allowed you to enter a giveaway multiple times (spending the points each time, of course), with a limit of let's say ten entries (that way someone couldn't enter 300 times for a $1 game). Do you think you'd do that for games you really wanted?
So let's say you really wanted Skyrim, you could spend 500 points (assuming you can earn all that before the giveaway ends, since you can only hold 300) to get 10 entries.
I think there would be two advantages to this:
1) You can increase your odds for games you really want instead of just spending points on games you're only mildly interested in simply because you have "extra" points to spare (most useful when new indie bundles or steam sales are going on when the points spill in quickly). But going from 1/800 chance to 10/800 chance of winning doesn't give you a huge edge that makes it unfair, not to mention everyone could do it if they really wanted to.
2) It means less people entering giveaways for games they don't really care about, keeping the odds better for those that care a lot. For example, maybe you want a less popular indie game, like Gateways and in there's another person that really wants Skyrim, but there's only one giveaway for Skyrim and 10 giveaways for Gateways. Under the current system, that person may enter the Skyrim giveaway and all the Gateway giveaways, but if given the opportunity, he'd spend all his points to enter Skyrim, not entering any of the Gateways giveaways, thus providing you with slightly better odds, which you can then increase further by entering multiple times if you so desired.
Just seems like it wouldn't be that hard to implement (basically just one extra field in the database), and it would solve one of the biggest gripes I always see in the forums - people entering/winning giveaways just for the sake of spending points, with no intention to actually play the games.
Thoughts?
Comment has been collapsed.